Abia State Governor Okezie Ikpeazu and his party, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), have filed a notice of appeal challenging the Appeal Court’s decision sacking him from office.
The court’s panel, led by Justice Oyebisi had declared Alex Otti of the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA) the winner of the election of April 11, last year.
It held that Otti scored the highest valid votes of 164,332 against 114,444, scored by Ikpeazu.
The court held that there were cases of over-voting and allocation of votes in favour of the PDP candidate in three Local Government Areas: Isi-Alangwa, Osisioma and Obingwa and voided elections in the three councils.
In a notice of appeal filed yesterday at the Supreme Court, Ikpeazu and PDP are praying the court to, among others, set aside the Appeal Court’s judgment on the grounds that neither Otti nor his party had credible and cogent evidence to support their petition challenging Ikpeazu’s victory.
They also wrote the Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Professor Mahmood Yakubu, asking him to respect the constitution.
In the letter written on their behalf by Wole Olanipekun (SAN), they contended that Ikpeazu remained the governor until he had exhausted his right of appeal to the Supreme Court.
The governor and his party said they were dissatisfied with the judgment and instructed their lawyer to appeal against it at the Supreme Court.
PDP said Ikpeazu had a constitutional right to appeal against the judgment at the Supreme Court, under and by virtue of Section 233(2) (e) (iv) of the constitution (as amended).
Ikpeazu and his party added that would file a notice of appeal, because they were yet to access a certified true copy (CTC) of the judgment.
They raised three grounds, including: the Appeal Court was wrong to have declared “the 1st respondent (Otti) winner of the April 11 and 25, 2015 Abia State governorship election on the grounds that he scored the majority lawful votes cast at the election”.
They contended in the second ground that “the Court of Appeal erred in law when the Justices on the panel neglected to apply the provisions of sections 49, 52(2), 138(2) and 155 of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) but relied solely on Card Reader accreditation as the basis for holding that there was over-voting and therefore cancelled the election in Obingwa, Osisioma Ngwa and Isiala Ngwa LGAs in the April 11 and 25, 2015 Abia State Governorship election”.
The appellants noted that ”in instant case, where the 1st and 2nd respondents (Otti and APGA) sought nullification of votes from Obingwa, Osisioma Ngwa and Isiala Ngwa North LGAs of Abia State in relation to matters or events that took place at the polling units, they must produce evidence of eye witnesses who saw it on the days of elections as well as tender primary unit results of documentary evidence in relation to the questioned Local Government Areas.
“The Court of Appeal found as a fact (as did the tribunla) that the State Returning Officer had no powers to cancel results in Obingwa, Osisioma Ngwa and Isiala Ngwa North LGAs.
“By the findings (in Paragraph iii) above, the allegations of malpractice and non-compliance as basis of results by the Returning Officer needed to be proved. No proof was offered and the Court of Appeal did not refer to any.”
Their letter reads in part: ”Bearing in mind the fact that INEC itself is a party to the processing as, and would also be a party to the appeal which would definitely be filed on behalf of our client immediately on receipt of the judgment of the court of appeal, may we urge INEC to resist any invitation by anybody or from any quarter to do anything that would work contrary to the provisions of both the constitution and Electoral Act in respect of the res (subject) of the appeal, particularly the position of the governor of Abia State, which our client occupies.
“Also, under Section 143(2) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended), our client has the statutory right to remain in office pending the expiration of the period within which an appeal shall be filed, assuming without conceding that he does not even want to lodge an appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal. Upon filing his notice of appeal, our client is also constitutionally entitled to remain in office until the Supreme Court decides and pronounces on his appeal.
“That what is causing the delay against the filing of the notice and grounds of appeal against judgment is the failure of the court to avail both our client and our humble selves of a copy of its judgment, even as at the time of writing this letter, and despite demands.’’
thenationonlineng.net/ikpeazu-urges-supreme-court-to-void-appeal-courts-judgment/

New year demotion